Search for: "Logic Leasing v. Administrative Inf*"
Results 21 - 40
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2014, 2:36 pm
” (Sagaser v. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 8:09 am
Brisson Stone, LLC v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
(Goleta Union School Dist. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 12:51 pm
Quazzo v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 10:05 am
Convergence Employee Leasing III, Inc., (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), the Employer/Carrier (E/C) were not entitled to the presumption due to their non-compliance with the collection and chain of custody procedures set forth in the administrative rules. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 3:58 pm
Lucas v. [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 6:16 am
Town of Huntington, N.Y. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 10:16 pm
Co., LLC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 2:33 pm
In a published decision filed October 31, 2014 (Paulek v. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
County of Mono v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 2:52 pm
Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 1:21 pm
The case, renamed Biden v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:00 am
In Yee v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am
” Here, the Biden administration agrees to Payne’s request for vacatur, although it opposes Payne’s additional request for further consideration in light of Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 3:48 pm
Center For Biological Diversity, et al. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:26 am
That case is pending in the Supreme Judicial Court under the caption Commonwealth v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 5:51 pm
Discerning majority-supported rules is like doing a logic puzzle for the LSAT. [read post]
7 May 2009, 2:07 pm
Since section 112 only addresses the termination of service contracts, this amendment really isn't absolutely necessary, and this is especially so in light of Justice Paul Perel's decision in the case of PSCC No. 668 v. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 3:26 pm
Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
As the City’s ordinance did not give the City authority to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise associated with design features, the appellate court ruled that the exemption was appropriate, following the logic in Bowman v. [read post]
